# Fifth Generation Evolutions?



## Kabigon

Err, I can't really seem to tell which ones are evolutions/pre-evolutions of previous gen Pokemon. Only one that I noticed was Luvdisc and I'm still not 100% sure about that. Any help?


----------



## Green

None are.


----------



## ....

> There are no evolutions or pre-evolutions of existing Pokemon in this generation, meaning Mamanbou is not Luvdisc's evolution (tragic!). This is the first generation without any Pokemon ties to previous generations.


----------



## Spoon

I imagine I'll be ninja'd, but none of the Isshu Pokémon evolve from or to Pokémon from the previous regions. I'm still surprised that Luvdisc doesn't evolve into that other pink heart shaped fish.


----------



## Kabigon

Well it's official. I've been officially turned off from this generation.


----------



## Kratos Aurion

Why on earth would a simple lack of evolutions be enough to turn you off of it? The intent was to start afresh a la Gen I and make it new and exciting all over again. Most people last gen were bitching about there being too _many_ new evolutions (part of that was because they disagreed with what got them, i.e. rhyperior-hate, but still). Regardless, that seems like a very silly reason to write the whole thing off as bad, unless there are a lot of other, more substantial reasons and this is just the straw that broke the camel's back or something.


----------



## Butterfree

So... were you also turned off generation I? It didn't have any evolutions of existing Pokémon either! And generation III only had two pre-evolutions and everything else original. Unless you only like generations II and IV, I call bullshit. :/

Honestly, last time I checked, everybody hated new evolutions/pre-evolutions anyway. Also B/W are awesome, and I don't even understand what the hell is going on in it.

Plus, being turned off a whole generation because it doesn't contain any Pokémon that fit some property X, as opposed to some relatively small fraction that do, is just silly. Unless the only Pokémon you like ever are evolutions of older Pokémon, or you don't like any of the fifth-generation Pokémon but somehow _would_ like them if they were evolutions of older Pokémon, it's nonsensical to dismiss all the perfectly fine original Pokémon in it because none of them are evolutions.


----------



## Superbird

Although I _do_ think Gamefreak is starting to run out of ideas. The only evo I would have liked was mamanbou. Hey, I wasn't around for gen. 1—This is a perfect way for me to replay it without getting a GBC.


----------



## SonicNintendo

no 5th-gen evos.  that was confirmed when the full Dex was released.


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate

Superbird said:


> Although I _do_ think Gamefreak is starting to run out of ideas.








In what way? They said the same for generations III & IV as well, I think.


----------



## Butterfree

"Game Freak are running out of ideas" is a stock phrase said by nostalgic fans who don't like the new Pokémon but feel they need to justify this with something that sounds objective.


----------



## Eloi

There is plenty to like with all originals. I think a good way to get to like them is to expose yourself to them until they become familar.

Pokemon I want to have in Gen V: #495, 496, 497, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 516, 517, 518, 522, 523, 529, 530, 531, 570, 571, 574, 575, 576, 585, 586, 587, 625, 628, 643, 644, 648. I also love all of the new characters human-wise too! ^.^

So, just take your time to like them, you'll warm up.


----------



## Butterfree

I barely liked _any_ of the fifth-generation Pokémon when they were first revealed, but by now I love them and don't even miss the old Pokémon while playing White. Like Eloi said, just allow yourself to warm up to them.


----------



## Superbird

Nah, I actually really like a lot of them. My question is, what's left?


----------



## Yarnchu

Superbird said:


> Nah, I actually really like a lot of them. My question is, what's left?


Well, a lot! They've barely began to scratch the surface of plants and animals to use, and they've shown they aren't afraid to get obscure as far back as Gen 1(I bet very few of you know what Vileplume is based on!). Plus, we have a _Trash Bag and Ice Cream Pokemon_, so they aren't afraid of inanimate objects either. Not to mention that the design team gets bigger every game, and the fact that Black and White were the first games to bring in a foreigner to help design Pokemon(James Turner, an American), so there's a never-ending flow of new ideas and perspectives for the games. I think it's rather silly to say there's not much left to do when there's inspiration all around us.


----------



## Kratos Aurion

If there were no possible ideas for pokémon designs left then why is making fakemon still so popular? If I can flip to a random page in Wikipedia and get some amazing jumping-off point for an idea, so can anyone else--including Game Freak. That's to say nothing of doing more research, choosing a theme to design around, etc..


----------



## Superbird

Good point. I'm sort of annoyed they haven't made a fire fish yet. =/


----------



## ultraviolet

Superbird said:
			
		

> My question is, what's left?


Lionfish, Peacocks, Flamingos? If I can come up with those three off the top of my head, I don't think they're running out of ideas at all.


----------



## Crazy Linoone

I do feel like they need to tone down the colors a little though. All the bright shiny contrasting super-saturated colors are starting to hurt my eyes. I mean, some are really nice (America bird! Purple fighting-type thing!), but 






 and 

	
	
		
		
	


	





just hurts my eyes while 







is... no. What is that ugly yellow-green-color?!


----------



## Squornshellous Beta

Crazy Linoone said:


>


And people say _I_ don't know how well colors go together - the left and right ones especially just hurt my eyes.


----------



## Crazy Linoone

Squornshellous Beta said:


> And people say _I_ don't know how well colors go together - the left and right ones especially just hurt my eyes.


And poor kibago is so cute, too! I mean, the fact that this adorable, nicely-colored 






dragon evolves into that horrible horrible eyesore just makes me squirm. 

And the colors don't even match :(


----------



## Aisling

I like Ononokusu. Just because _you_ don't like one particular color in the scheme doesn't automatically make the whole thing bad... Kurimugan is mostly fine too- the red just needs to be a little less bright so it goes with the blue better. Aaken does the red-blue-yellow thing right.

Pendoraa is actually kind of hard to look at though. It'd look fine if the spots were the same color as the belly, but that shade of purple makes it hard to tell where the spots actually are. It makes my eyes cross.

Either way those are really the only possible contrast offenders of this entire gen so that's hardly enough to discredit it (or warrant the use of "all the"). Well, those and the genies.


----------



## Not Meowth

vaporchu said:


> (I bet very few of you know what Vileplume is based on!).


A rafflesia.
Where's my cookie


Also I really want a lionfish Pokémon now :C


----------



## Butterfree

...I thought rafflesias were pretty well-known? There's the whole biggest-flower-in-the-world unbelievably-horrible-smelling thing. I remember reading about it sometime when I was way little.

I like Pendoraa's color scheme. It's frigging _poisonous_. Poisonous things want to be colored brightly to warn predators not to touch them.


----------



## Tailsy

this bro! Mike is right, it is actually a rafflesia. Just a really big one.

Pendoraa is fly like a G6, right, and bitches _notice_!

I actually think this gen is probably one of my favourites, Pokémon-wise. Although a gen with Erufuun in it just steals my heart. <3


----------



## Jolty

what are you guys on about Pendora is the BEST COLOUR EVER
I'm such a faggot for bright colours so I'm very ok with everything. Ononokus's colour is kinda dodgy though I'll admit :B


----------



## Yarnchu

Butterfree said:


> ...I thought rafflesias were pretty well-known? There's the whole biggest-flower-in-the-world unbelievably-horrible-smelling thing. I remember reading about it sometime when I was way little.
> 
> I like Pendoraa's color scheme. It's frigging _poisonous_. Poisonous things want to be colored brightly to warn predators not to touch them.


Well, I never actually knew such a flower existed. I guess it just depends on where you live though. Apparently they're pretty big in Japan(not surprising at all considering their obsession with weird stuff).

And, yeah, I like the color schemes. The red/blue dragon probably should be desaturated some, but otherwise it's fine, if a little odd looking.


----------



## Crazy Linoone

Alraune said:


> I like Ononokusu. Just because _you_ don't like one particular color in the scheme doesn't automatically make the whole thing bad... Kurimugan is mostly fine too- the red just needs to be a little less bright so it goes with the blue better. Aaken does the red-blue-yellow thing right.


Ononokusu's color scheme just really bothers me... Since I don't really care about the design, the colors was just the last draw that pushed it from "it might grow on me" to "ew". I feel like they should've kept Kibago's dark green scheme so they match better. I suppose they didn't want Ononokusu to look like a Tyrannitar or something, but they they could've used a whole new color scheme (for example, made the whole line yellow). 

Yeah. I really like Aaken because it has bright colors and is still pretty. And Nintendo pulled off blue-red contrast perfectly with Salamence, so they have no excuse for making poor Kurimugan look like that. 



> Either way those are really the only possible contrast offenders of this entire gen so that's hardly enough to discredit it (or warrant the use of "all the"). Well, those and the genies.


Well, if you read the sentence as a whole, I said "All the bright shiny contrasting super-saturated colors", not "all the gen-5 pokemon"... And I did mention that there're pokemon I really like (Bachuru~). My point was that there are a few pokemon with really eye-hurting color schemes and I don't like those pokemon with really eye-hurting color schemes. 



Butterfree said:


> I like Pendoraa's color scheme. It's frigging _poisonous_. Poisonous things want to be colored brightly to warn predators not to touch them.


The problem is that the purple spots and the pink skin are too close together in terms of color and, since they're both really saturated colors, it hurts my eyes. It might work better if there's more contrast, since the spots would actually show up, which means I don't have to strain my eyes as much to see the spots, getting rid of the eye-burning problem as well. 

I dunno, maybe I just have high standards.


----------



## Leaf Joltik

Crazy Linoone said:


> just hurts my eyes while
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is... no. What is that ugly yellow-green-color?!


...What, those aren't bright colors!
But that's just me.


----------



## #1 bro

BACHURU said:


> "Game Freak are running out of ideas" is a stock phrase said by nostalgic fans who don't like the new Pokémon but feel they need to justify this with something that sounds objective.


100% agree. there are sooooo many ideas that they could use that they haven't, as I have found out while brainstorming for a fandex that I am trying to create. 

"por ehemplo": flamingo, ostrich, t-rex, triceratops, porcupine/hedgehog (cyndaquil only sort of counts), raven, donkey, centipede/millipede, armadillo (donphan is kind of debatable on this), hampster, cheetah, raven, and dolphin are all not taken. and this is just actual animals that haven't been used as concepts - they haven't done, say, a centuar, or a chimera, or a medusa. and this doesn't even touch on the myriad of inanimate objects or abstract concepts that would work very well as pokemon, such as a pinata pokemon or chess piece pokemon. 







this guy (and his prevos) is of the pokemon that people have been shouting "THEY'RE RUNNING OUT OF IDEAS!!" the very most. but what they don't realize is that there hasn't even been a snowman pokemon yet. if game freak were truly "running out of ideas" then they would have made their three stage ice type evolution line snowman. think how easy that would have been! one ball per stage. but they didn't? why? because this pokemon is sweet (npi), and it's a better and more original idea than just drawing a cartoon snowman and calling it a day. and now they can save that snowman idea for when they TRULY run out of ideas. 

anyway:

*The fifth gen kicks ass.* It is, in my opinion, the best gen since second, POSSIBLY even the best gen since first. Zuruzukin! Roopushin! Jalorda! Rankurusu! Shandera! Kirkizan! Baffuron! Erufuun! Kokoromori! Aakeosu! There are seriously so many great designs. The only ones I don't really appreciate are Abagoora, Daikenki, and most of the legendaries (the genies in particular are embarrassingly copy + paste) . 

I absolutely loathe (well, maybe not, but) all those people who lack any self-insight to such a dramatic extent that they can't realize that the only reason they like the old pokemon better than the new is that they are already accustomed to the old. _Especially_ if you have not played the games yet. You cannot really have an opinion on the pokemon just by scrolling through a list of the sprites once or twice. Play the game. Let the designs settle a bit. Try to ignore nostalgia. Then make your judgment.


----------



## Zoltea

+ 

	
	
		
		
	


	




 = Wingless Giratina?


I remember talking with some friends about the new pokémon as they were coming out. One of them was afraid that 

	
	
		
		
	


	




 was going to be a pre-evo of Growlithe. I reassured them by using trends. If you pay attention, odd numbered generations always have new pokémon with little to no pokémon related to previous generations. This certainly held true going to gen 5. Even numbered generations are full of evolved pokémon of older generations and baby forms. Even numbered generations also contain new eeveelutions. Keep an eye out for this trend come generation 6.

Also, my suggestion, don't be afraid of change. It didn't happen so much with the 2nd generation as people were still getting into pokémon around that time. But with every new generation, 2 things happen:
1. People gripe and moan about the new pokémon and say they suck.
2. When it comes to the US, people hate the English names.
What happens every time? Everyone comes to accept them. Those who don't are still stuck back at the 2nd or 1st generation. My point is, just accept them at the start so you can have a greater joy of them by the time you get the game.


----------



## Superbird

The Ice Cream one in particular was awesome. You know what? I dont' think that anymore. They still have plenty of ideas—But I can't wait to see what's new in gen. VI.


----------



## #1 bro

re: eye-hurting colors:







I agree this guy's sprite makes it look a bit garish, but peep the sugi art. It's pretty clear that its armor is just gold/bronze/brass or something similar. I like this poke a lot, it looks like it belongs to gen II which is a very good thing in my mind. 







I think the effect they were going for here is "made out of construction paper", in a kind of puff the magic dragon storybook way. I could be misinterpreting the designers' intent, but that was the first thing when I saw it. Its colors make sense when you consider this: the red, blue, and yellow are the three primary colors and they all look very "medium", so to speak, like the kind of colors you would find in a pack of construction paper. I like this one too, although I kind of wish it had prevos of some sort. 







This pokemon is _easily_ the most badass of all fully evolved early-game bug types. Why hate? I suppose the rings _could_ contrast a little more with the body, but that's a very minor complaint compared with the coolness of its design.


----------



## Tailsy

Pendoraa is awesome. Better represent.


----------



## Not Meowth

Superbird said:


> The Ice Cream one in particular was awesome. You know what? I dont' think that anymore. They still have plenty of ideas—But I can't wait to see what's new in gen. VI.


They'll all be legendaries, every last one. :p

(Also this is the first generation where none of the starter Pokémon get Scratch as one of their first moves. Totally irrelevant but shh)


----------



## Crazy Linoone

The thing is that I'm _not_ complaining about the designs, just the color choices. 



#1 bro said:


> "por ehemplo": flamingo, ostrich, t-rex, triceratops, porcupine/hedgehog (cyndaquil only sort of counts), raven, donkey, centipede/millipede, armadillo (donphan is kind of debatable on this), hampster, cheetah, raven, and dolphin are all not taken. and this is just actual animals that haven't been used as concepts - they haven't done, say, a centuar, or a chimera, or a medusa. and this doesn't even touch on the myriad of inanimate objects or abstract concepts that would work very well as pokemon, such as a pinata pokemon or chess piece pokemon.


Yup yup. Although I can argue that Dodos are ostrich-based, Shaymin is a hedgehog, and we have Murkrow, which is close enough to a raven, and Sandslash, which is armadillo. And we do have a t-rex (tyrannitar) and a triceratops-ish pokemon (bastiodon). Arceus might pass as a centuar, but it's weird enough so that one can argue either way. 

Donkey pokemon would be awesome. Or a llama. 

Anyone who thinks Nintendo is running out of ideas need to take a look at all the animals they haven't used. 



> *The fifth gen kicks ass.* It is, in my opinion, the best gen since second, POSSIBLY even the best gen since first. Zuruzukin! Roopushin! Jalorda! Rankurusu! Shandera! Kirkizan! Baffuron! Erufuun! Kokoromori! Aakeosu! There are seriously so many great designs. The only ones I don't really appreciate are Abagoora, Daikenki, and most of the legendaries (the genies in particular are embarrassingly copy + paste) .


Zuruzukin and Smugleaf are the most badass pokemon ever. 

But I like Abagoora and Daikenki! Abagoora is pretty cool (I mean, it's a sea turtle with headgear and a bullet-proof-vest-like shell. It's like, from the black-ops or something.) And Daikenki, while the colors can be prettier, is a narwhal otter combo. Awesomeness++

I loved Zekrom at first sight because it had awesome claws, but didn't like Reshiram until I saw a cool picture of it, and now I love them both. The legendary ponies are pretty cool as well. 



#1 bro said:


> re: eye-hurting colors:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree this guy's sprite makes it look a bit garish, but peep the sugi art. It's pretty clear that its armor is just gold/bronze/brass or something similar. I like this poke a lot, it looks like it belongs to gen II which is a very good thing in my mind.


I WITHDRAW ALL PREVIOUS COMMENTS ABOUT THE HORRIBLE COLOR Great Arceus this is awesome. 



> This pokemon is _easily_ the most badass of all fully evolved early-game bug types. Why hate? I suppose the rings _could_ contrast a little more with the body, but that's a very minor complaint compared with the coolness of its design.


But I'm not hating on the design... >.< I just don't like the fact that the rings and the body are so close together that it's hard to see.


----------



## #1 bro

Crazy Linoone said:


> Yup yup. Although I can argue that Dodos are ostrich-based


I was going to respond with "no, they're dodo birds" but then I looked up dodo bird on google images and they indeed look nothing alike. I could have sworn that a dodo bird looks exactly like a one-headed doduo, but aagh, can't win 'em all. You're right. 



> Shaymin is a hedgehog


Correct, I forgot about this one



> and we have Murkrow, which is close enough to a raven


Murkrow is a crow, which is subtly different from a raven, I guess. :\



> Sandslash, which is armadillo


I think of an armadillo as "thing with long ears and snout and very thick later of skin that can turn into a sphere". Which Sandslash is not. But I looked it up anyway, and apparently Sandslash is a "pangolin", which is related to the armadillo. Either way, Sandslash is not technically an armadillo, nor does it exhibit any of the distinguishing characteristics of an armadillo, so I think it's safe to say that they have not created an armadillo pokemon yet. 



> And we do have a t-rex (tyrannitar)


I don't think so. Tyranitar shares nothing in common with T-rexes save for the "ty" part of their names. 



> and a triceratops-ish pokemon (bastiodon)


I'm not seeing it. :\  



> Arceus might pass as a centuar, but it's weird enough so that one can argue either way.


eeeh the fact that it doesn't have arms makes me write it off as more of a "long necked horse" but I can definitely see where you're coming from. 

Anyway here are some animals to replace those invalid ones: toucan, daddy long legs spider, squid, orca, chimera, peacock, okapi, yak, kiwi bird, naked mole rat. 



> But I like Abagoora and Daikenki! Abagoora is pretty cool (I mean, it's a sea turtle with headgear and a bullet-proof-vest-like shell. It's like, from the black-ops or something.)


I can appreciate your opinion, but I just find Abagoora kind of uninteresting. We don't really need a very vanilla blue water/rock turtle - we already have quite a few turtle pokemon. And when you compare it to Aakeosu, it gets blown out of the water. To each his own, I suppose. 



> And Daikenki, while the colors can be prettier, is a narwhal otter combo. Awesomeness++


I don't mind it, but it's a bit weird how Futachimaru _completely_ changes upon evolution to a pokemon that isn't really any sort of animal, it's just... a thing. 



> I loved Zekrom at first sight because it had awesome claws, but didn't like Reshiram until I saw a cool picture of it, and now I love them both. The legendary ponies are pretty cool as well.


Z and R are indeed awesome. However, the musketeers don't look like legendaries _or_ like a trio, and I don't like the idea of quadrupedal fighting types. The genies, like I said, are too copy + paste for me. Kyurem doesn't complement Z + R well enough and looks kind of awkward, Victini and Meloetta are ugly (imho), and... Genosect I actually like.

However, as a group I like them better than the legendaries in gen IV. Here, the legendaries seem deliberately pushed out of the limelight, while in gen IV it was all legendaries all the time. And at least here they're organized into coherent groups, whereas in gen IV some of them were just bizarrely there (Heatran, Cresselia). And these pokemon seem a little less horribly overpowered than the legendaries in gen IV (no christian god creator of everything pokemon this time around, thank goodness)


----------



## Kratos Aurion

Bastiodon is based on a ceratopsian dinosaur (this is the one Bulbapedia suggests, though something like this one is a more likely direct influence imo), which is the kind of dinosaur _Triceratops_ is. It's not "a triceratops" per se, no, but I hardly see why one would be necessary aside from being a more iconic member of the family than whatever bastiodon is. (Given that it's supposed to be the mythical "impenetrable defense" to rampardos's "unstoppable force", they'd be more interested in the neck shield than any facial horns anyway.)


----------



## Crazy Linoone

#1 bro said:


> I don't think so. Tyranitar shares nothing in common with T-rexes save for the "ty" part of their names.


Eh, I think they look pretty similar. 



> I'm not seeing it. :\


Well, it's _some_ type of Ceratopsid. It's got the right head-shape and horns. And if they make another Ceratopsid, it might look too similar to Bastiodon. Plus, there's lots of other animal choices like what you listed. 

EDIT: Ninja'd by Kratos. What he said, basically. 



> Anyway here are some animals to replace those invalid ones: toucan, daddy long legs spider, squid, orca, chimera, peacock, okapi, yak, kiwi bird, naked mole rat.


I would love a toucan pokemon. And these are very legit animals. We've had tons of spider pokemon (alright, maybe only about four, but...) but all of them are rather squishy and fat-looking things. A agile or graceful spider would be pretty awesome. 



> I can appreciate your opinion, but I just find Abagoora kind of uninteresting. We don't really need a very vanilla blue water/rock turtle - we already have quite a few turtle pokemon. And when you compare it to Aakeosu, it gets blown out of the water. To each his own, I suppose.


That's true. I like Aakeosu way more than Abagoora, but Abagoora isn't that bad either.

 I think Aakeosu is one of the best gen 5 pokemon, in terms of design. Minus the fact that it's based on one of my favorite dinosaur-bird species, the colors are really nice -- they go together very well despite being contrasting colors, and I love the four-winged birdness and its tail. 

They should've have made a velociraptor counterpart. Then it would have been perfect. 



> I don't mind it, but it's a bit weird how Futachimaru _completely_ changes upon evolution to a pokemon that isn't really any sort of animal, it's just... a thing.


I have to agree with you on that one. Futachimaru is definitely my favorite out of the Wotter line, since it actually resembles its pre-evo and looks cool at the same time. 


> Z and R are indeed awesome. However, the musketeers don't look like legendaries _or_ like a trio, and I don't like the idea of quadrupedal fighting types. The genies, like I said, are too copy + paste for me. Kyurem doesn't complement Z + R well enough and looks kind of awkward, Victini and Meloetta are ugly (imho), and... Genosect I actually like.


I agree with you completely. Here's to hoping that Kyurem gets a cool form in Pokemon Gray or Spectrum or whatever the third game's going to be called. 



> However, as a group I like them better than the legendaries in gen IV. Here, the legendaries seem deliberately pushed out of the limelight, while in gen IV it was all legendaries all the time. And at least here they're organized into coherent groups, whereas in gen IV some of them were just bizarrely there (Heatran, Cresselia). And these pokemon seem a little less horribly overpowered than the legendaries in gen IV (no christian god creator of everything pokemon this time around, thank goodness)


This very much. Cresselia I could understand to compliment Darkrai, but Heatran had no excuse. 

I remember when everyone was flipping out because, you know, you can catch _god_ and thought Pokemon was over forever. 

And then there was Bachuru.


----------



## Griffin

I facepalm every time someone calls the ice cream Pokemon "uncreative." No one's even _tried_ making an ice cream fakemon before, as far as I can see!

And yes, Bachuru is the most adorable thing to every walk the earth.


----------



## Yarnchu

I think Bachuru is adorable and I despise spiders. And Denchura gets awesome points for not being creepy looking either.

TBH, I was disappointed that Luvdisc didn't get an evolution, but its probably for the best this way. They aren't hampered by having older Pokemon in the Pokedex, after all.


----------



## Kabigon

I still like how some of the Pokemon look. But it's been a turn off since the game is turning from "exotic creatures" into "viruses from Megaman Battle Network".

I mean, I saw a Pokemon wearing a Dobok! THAT ISN'T NATURAL!

inb4hitmonchanhasgloves


----------



## Eloi

Kabigon said:


> I still like how some of the Pokemon look. But it's been a turn off since the game is turning from "exotic creatures" into "viruses from Megaman Battle Network".


Eh? They all still look like Pokemon to me. Here is a good guideline to tell a Pokemon from a non-Pokemon, aesthetics wise:

1)It has interesting use of color. You can say a lot about Pokemon designs, but they usually are not drab. Even when using white, black, or just monochromatic schemes, the coloration is usually used in an interesting manner. 
2)Pokemon usually doesn't just have a theme or idea for something. They usually mix in various thoughts and ideas about it.
3)Pokemon usually are not overly complex, and if you pair two Pokemon together, even from different media, they usually look similar. 


Lets apply those principles.













Now, barring that you already probably know one or the other, which one is the Pokemon and which one is the Digimon? The top one has pretty standard-coloring, is pretty straightforward in its "Japanese dragon" theme, and has rather complicated amount of detail with the scales, whiskers, et. al. The bottom one uses colors in a unique way, has odd markings and head configuration and other details that don't say "Japanese dragon!" very clearly, and while it has some detail it still looks rather sleek. Thus, using those design aesthetics, we can find the bottom one is a Pokemon, and the top one is a Digimon.
Now, I have yet to see a Gen V Pokemon that fails criteria 1-3, so I don't think we have a problem.


----------



## Crazy Linoone

Eloi said:


> Eh? They all still look like Pokemon to me. Here is a good guideline to tell a Pokemon from a non-Pokemon, aesthetics wise:
> 
> 1)It has interesting use of color. You can say a lot about Pokemon designs, but they usually are not drab. Even when using white, black, or just monochromatic schemes, the coloration is usually used in an interesting manner.
> 2)Pokemon usually doesn't just have a theme or idea for something. They usually mix in various thoughts and ideas about it.
> 3)Pokemon usually are not overly complex, and if you pair two Pokemon together, even from different media, they usually look similar.


The thing is that quite a few of Gen IV and V fail the last criteria, in my opinion at least. I'm not saying that all Gen IV and V pokemon are bad (Bachuru~), but some are just too overloaded with little designs and/or look too similar to another unrelated pokemon. 

Take, for example, Kuritaran. 







I mean, just what in the world is this _thing_? It's not an animal, nor a plant, nor a fish, or even an object; it's just a thing. It has too much _stuff_ all over its body. What are we supposed to be looking at? The stripes on its body? Its weird drill-like claws? Its pointy head? And just what is up with those brown strips all over its back? 

Pandoraa, for example, is only trying to get across two things: its bright-pink poisonousness and its caterpillar-ness, which is accomplished by the segmented body and antennas. Ok, Pandoraa is a poisonous worm, we got this. But it's not a boring poisonous worm either; the antennas and tails are a nice touch, and it's a _fat_, poisonous worm. I'm still a bit iffy on the purple color of the rings (I'd like them better if they have more contrast), but it cuts up the pink and spices up the design as a whole. Without the purple rings, Pandoraa would be a rather boring, fat, poisonous worm with too much pink. 

Back to Kuritaran. The thing is that the yellow stripes on its front accomplish nothing. It draws attention away from the cooler parts of the design, such as the claws and the pipe-tail, and instead makes our eyes focus on the clown-like stripes. Maybe it's supposed to look like magma or something, but there's better ways of doing that than putting bright yellow stripes all over its body! I think the focus of Kuritaran should be on its claws, its strange body shape, and maybe its tail, and anything else is unnecessary; it's got enough details on those three parts to look interesting. 

And the first thing I thought when I saw Wargle was "this pokemon looks like a digimon". Yes, it's made of awesome, but doesn't it look like it could have evolved/digivolved from Hawkmon? 

And I think Kyuremu and the three fat cloud gods look like Yu-Gi-Oh monsters.


----------



## Coloursfall

Crazy Linoone said:


> I mean, just what in the world is this _thing_? It's not an animal, nor a plant, nor a fish, or even an object; it's just a thing. It has too much _stuff_ all over its body. What are we supposed to be looking at? The stripes on its body? Its weird drill-like claws? Its pointy head? And just what is up with those brown strips all over its back?


It's an anteater + a flamethrower, and probably a bit of lava/volcano thrown in there.  Hence its rivalry with Aianto, which is an ant.  The red/yellow colouration is probably a fire-type thing, the brown stripes are pipes, and the tail is an exhaust pipe. I think its fairly clever, actually.


----------



## Eloi

Crazy Linoone said:


> The thing is that quite a few of Gen IV and V fail the last criteria, in my opinion at least. I'm not saying that all Gen IV and V pokemon are bad (Bachuru~), but some are just too overloaded with little designs and/or look too similar to another unrelated pokemon.
> 
> Take, for example, Kuritaran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, just what in the world is this _thing_? It's not an animal, nor a plant, nor a fish, or even an object; it's just a thing. It has too much _stuff_ all over its body. What are we supposed to be looking at? The stripes on its body? Its weird drill-like claws? Its pointy head? And just what is up with those brown strips all over its back?
> 
> Pandoraa, for example, is only trying to get across two things: its bright-pink poisonousness and its caterpillar-ness, which is accomplished by the segmented body and antennas. Ok, Pandoraa is a poisonous worm, we got this. But it's not a boring poisonous worm either; the antennas and tails are a nice touch, and it's a _fat_, poisonous worm. I'm still a bit iffy on the purple color of the rings (I'd like them better if they have more contrast), but it cuts up the pink and spices up the design as a whole. Without the purple rings, Pandoraa would be a rather boring, fat, poisonous worm with too much pink.
> 
> Back to Kuritaran. The thing is that the yellow stripes on its front accomplish nothing. It draws attention away from the cooler parts of the design, such as the claws and the pipe-tail, and instead makes our eyes focus on the clown-like stripes. Maybe it's supposed to look like magma or something, but there's better ways of doing that than putting bright yellow stripes all over its body! I think the focus of Kuritaran should be on its claws, its strange body shape, and maybe its tail, and anything else is unnecessary; it's got enough details on those three parts to look interesting.
> 
> And the first thing I thought when I saw Wargle was "this pokemon looks like a digimon". Yes, it's made of awesome, but doesn't it look like it could have evolved/digivolved from Hawkmon?


I think the Pokemon you first mentioned shows how they don't just stick to one idea (criteria 2), and Wargle definitely accomplishes criteria 1 (its interestingly colored), 2 (it is an eagle, Native American war chief, and U.S.A. flag all in one), and 3 (the feathers and talons aren't too detailed). And I don't think Wargle is a Pokemon that is Digimon-like, just that Hawkmon is (kind-of, its overly loyal to the hawk concept and the coloring is not interesting) a Pokemon-like Digmon.


----------



## Kabigon

There's evolution and then just plain weird.


----------



## Crazy Linoone

Big Red Cherry Bomb said:


> It's an anteater + a flamethrower, and probably a bit of lava/volcano thrown in there.  Hence its rivalry with Aianto, which is an ant.  The red/yellow colouration is probably a fire-type thing, the brown stripes are pipes, and the tail is an exhaust pipe. I think its fairly clever, actually.


That makes sense. I think it's clever, too, but it just has too many details. There's not one or two especially significant trait that makes us go "oh look, a Kuritaran" but many, many of them. If they spread the details out to two pokemon instead of cramming all of them on just one, it might look better. I really love the claws and the pipe-tail, but the yellow stripes and squiggly things on its back draw attention away from the more special, interesting parts. 



Eloi said:


> I think the Pokemon you first mentioned shows how they don't just stick to one idea (criteria 2), and Wargle definitely accomplishes criteria 1 (its interestingly colored), 2 (it is an eagle, Native American war chief, and U.S.A. flag all in one), and 3 (the feathers and talons aren't too detailed). And I don't think Wargle is a Pokemon that is Digimon-like, just that Hawkmon is (kind-of, its overly loyal to the hawk concept and the coloring is not interesting) a Pokemon-like Digmon.


Some Digimon and Yu-Gi-Oh monsters fit that criteria, too, so it gets hard to argue sometimes. Wargle is definitely not the most digimon-like pokemon out there, but it's just a feeling I had, so just disregard it. 

I think the main thing that separates (most) pokemon from other monster-things is that pokemon have simple, cute designs. They're not overloaded with lines and wings and feathers and random spikes and what have it, and they don't look especially menacing. For example, Charizard is a_ flaming dragon_, but it still doesn't look scary because it's kind of fat and has a largish head. The design is simple (dragon + fire, yay). 

On the other hand, Digimon and YGO usually has monsters loaded with designs. The Blue-Eyed White Dragon, off the top of my head, has many layers of armors and pointy things all over its body, and it looks pretty darn scary and pointy. Same with Digimon -- a lot of the final digilutions have huge claws, lots of armor and color, scales, wings, spikes, or some combination of the above. And lots and lots of lines. 

Pokemon designs are meant to accomplish something, to convey its theme -- Charizard is a flaming dragon, so it has fire coming out of its tail. Wargle is a native american war chief eagle, so it's a bird with Native American hair-dress-like feathers and colored like America. 

Hence I don't like Kuritaran much: it's an anteater-volcano-flamethrower-thing, and I get the anteater and volcano part (awesome claws, body shape, coloring), but the yellow stripes makes it look like a clown, not magma or fire (Magmar pulled off the magma part pretty well). I think I'm just butthurt over those yellow stripes.


----------



## Autumn

Bachuru said:


> "Game Freak are running out of ideas" is a stock phrase said by nostalgic fans who don't like the new Pokémon but feel they need to justify this with something that sounds objective.


There was this one morning at school when I said something about B/W looking really cool to a number of kids who liked Pokémon but didn't keep up with the current news (they didn't know B/W existed). At one point, I said "There's a literal American eagle in this!" Their response was, quite literally, "They're running out of ideas."

I ignored that at first, but when referencing B/W again a few minutes later, I mentioned the existence of that chandelier-ghost-thing, to which one of my friends (who hadn't even been there when I mentioned Wargle!) went "Oh my god, they are so running out of ideas!"

This resulted in all of the kids deciding that Pokémon's Pokémon designs had Jumped The Shark, both out of unfamiliarity _and_ the fact that "we have a time and space legendary and a God Pokémon, where else is there to go?" (I don't think they heard me when I attempted to argue "The second set of games didn't have an all-powerful legendary!")

Finally I went "SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO ME FOR A MINUTE. The first set of games had a mole that evolved into three moles. The first set of games had a magnet which evolved into three magnets. The first set of games had a pile of sludge that evolved into a bigger pile of sludge."


----------



## #1 bro

The most immediately obvious difference between pokemon and digimon is pokemon's relative simplicity. This, of course, stems from the fact that pokemon's native environment are 80 * 80 pixel boxes. But this is not the only difference.  

I think the _real_ difference is simply that pokemon are not mere fighting machines. The creators of pokemon were very clearly inspired by biology and the natural world to a much greater degree than the creators of digimon, and the creators of other works that heavily feature monsters. For example, it is impossible to imagine this digimon finding a place in an ecosystem anywhere, or in fact doing anything other than fighting. But with something like Charizard (probably the pokemon most analogous to that specific digimon) it is very easy to picture it curling up in a cave somewhere, or flying over mountain ranges, or something like that. 

You might say that there are pokemon like Magnemite, who are obviously not natural. But I would argue that even the unnatural pokemon like Magnemite or Muk sort of occupy an "urban" ecosystem that has no counterpart in real life. I kind of recall from the anime that Magnemite have animal societies and animal behavior just like the more natural pokemon do. Simply because certain pokemon are not based off of animals does not mean that they do not exhibit the same behavior as animals. 

And then of course there are pokemon like Nageki and Dageki. I will concede the fact that these pokemon are not really in the spirit of pokemon that I described above. Still, there are very few pokemon like these two, and I think that one or two doesn't really hurt in the long run. Lucario is another pokemon that doesn't fit in "the spirit", and in fact I probably consider Lucario the most digimon-like of all current pokemon. 

A lot of the rest of the difference between digimon and pokemon can simply be chalked up to difference in the art style. Agumon could be a pokemon if he was drawn by Ken Sugimori, and Charmander could be a digimon if he was drawn by the artist who draws digimon. However, Hawkmon is not interchangeable with say, Pidgey, because Hawkmon simply does not resemble birds in nature. It looks too ready to fight, and not ready enough to peck at the ground or build a nest or anything that birds actually do.

I don't think there's a problem with certain pokemon resembling digimon, or even the series evolving so that the pokemon look like digimon. However, I do think that pokemon is the vastly superior and more sophisticated series, for the reasons I described above. The fact that pokemon is based around "natural" elements allows you to imagine an entire alternate universe while you play the game, whereas digimon is simply all about battling and does not have the same appeal.

edit: I think this is also why people didn't appreciate the 4th gen legendaries or 4th gen evolutions of previous pokemon very much.


----------



## Not Meowth

Crazy Linoone said:


> And I think Kyuremu and the three fat cloud gods look like Yu-Gi-Oh monsters.


YuGiOh has shoe and burger monsters. I don't think Pokémon's gone quite that abstract yet.


----------



## Karkat Vantas

#1 bro said:


> I think the _real_ difference is simply that pokemon are not mere fighting machines. The creators of pokemon were very clearly inspired by biology and the natural world to a much greater degree than the creators of digimon, and the creators of other works that heavily feature monsters. For example, it is impossible to imagine this digimon finding a place in an ecosystem anywhere, or in fact doing anything other than fighting. But with something like Charizard (probably the pokemon most analogous to that specific digimon) it is very easy to picture it curling up in a cave somewhere, or flying over mountain ranges, or something like that.


Counterpoint: darksilvania.


----------



## Thorne

Karkat Vantas said:


> Counterpoint: darksilvania.


Mind you Darksilvania never called his fakes Pokémon, he called them Powermon, something different hence why his designs were over the top from the very start.
His fake evolutions are far less exaggerated, but still looks rather unPokémonlike.

Plus he is one of those people who are convinced there should be a Light-type.


----------



## Karkat Vantas

Cuddlefuzz said:


> Mind you Darksilvania never called his fakes Pokémon, he called them Powermon, something different hence why his designs were over the top from the very start.
> His fake evolutions are far less exaggerated, but still looks rather unPokémonlike.
> 
> Plus he is one of those people who are convinced there should be a Light-type.


Calling them POWERMON seems more like an excuse to make his fakes over the top than an a valid explanation.

And considering all the fakemon galleries his stuff gets submitted to, I think they're more or less the same.


----------



## #1 bro

This guy is obviously a talented artist, but his pokemon of course look nothing like pokemon for the precise reasons I described. I think you just helped me prove my point?? :|



Meowth said:


> YuGiOh has shoe and burger monsters. I don't think Pokémon's gone quite that abstract yet.


Don't forget the House of Adhesive Tape.


----------



## Ryan the Terrible

What about this isn't perfect? ;~;


----------



## Karkat Vantas

#1 bro said:


> This guy is obviously a talented artist, but his pokemon of course look nothing like pokemon for the precise reasons I described. I think you just helped me prove my point??


My point was that people don't complain that his things don't look like Pokemon.


----------



## surskitty

#1 bro said:


> Anyway here are some animals to replace those invalid ones: toucan, daddy long legs spider, squid, orca, chimera, peacock, okapi, yak, kiwi bird, naked mole rat.


Shimama is an okapi; Ho-oh is based off a peacock.


----------



## Whirlpool

Isn't Ho-oh based off of a phoenix?


----------



## Aisling

Crazy Linoone said:


> Take, for example, Kuritaran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, just what in the world is this _thing_? It's not an animal, nor a plant, nor a fish, or even an object; it's just a thing.


That you didn't realize what this is right away (especially since the Pokemon right after it is a steel type ant- this thing being a fire type makes the ant really obvious prey) boggles my mind. D: I think you're looking too hard at the wrong things here.



surskitty said:


> Shimama is an okapi; Ho-oh is based off a peacock.


I'm pretty sure okapi only have stripes on their butts and legs, that Shimama is a corruption of the Japanese word for zebra (you of all people should know this too), and that it evolves into a Pokemon that _also_ has zebra in its name. Okapi aren't even really related to zebras, either, they're giraffes. And Ho-Oh is definitely supposed to be a phoenix, and while I guess you could argue that many phoenix representations draw elements from the peacock, the designers were probably looking at peacock-like phoenixes instead of making a phoenix-like peacock.


----------



## Crazy Linoone

@#1 bro: I agree with this very much, although a lot of pokemon seem forced. Combusken, for example, looks uncannily like Hawkmon. Most of the new legendaries (starting from gen 3, really) seem more like gods than super rare pokemon. At first, we had the legendary birds, which look like they could just be really rare animals. Even Lugia and Celebi seem like they're just rare; Lugias live at the bottom of the ocean, hence nobody can find them, and Celebi is just elusive due to its time-traveling abilities. 

And then we had the Regis, which did not look like they occupy any sort of ecosystem at all. Groudon, Kyogre, and Rayquaza (as much as I love them) are on the fence here -- they _could_ be like Lugia and Ho-oh, really rare pokemon that's hard to find, but their superpowers make them seem... I dunno, a bit overboard. That's fine because it's the first time this happened, but then gen 4 came along and blew everything out of proportions. Now we have a god pokemon that created the whole universe, and that's just kind of unnecessary. We have the emotion/will/knowledge pixies, and those don't seem like normal animals at all, but more like gods. I don't know about gen 5's legendaries yet, since I'm avoiding plot spoilers and thus not sure of their functions, so I'll withhold comment on those. 

Of course, not all legendaries are like that -- Latias/Latios, for example, really give off the elusive feeling. They're not all powerful, they're just really rare. 

Digimon and YGO, on the other hand, aren't _supposed_ to look natural. Digimon are, like the name suggests, digital monsters created by computers, while YGO monsters came from cards. Hence the big design difference: Digimon and YGO monsters _are_ created to fight, but Pokemon are just normal animals. 

And another thing: while pokemon are mostly designed to have a certain habitat, it doesn't mean that it has a good design, purely aesthetically speaking. Again, I bring back Kuritaran, which is a spiffy design (anteater) but looks a bit meh. 



Meowth said:


> YuGiOh has shoe and burger monsters. I don't think Pokémon's gone quite that abstract yet.


But we do have ice-cream Pokemon! And magnet pokemon! Some pokemon are pretty darn abstract. 



Alraune said:


> That you didn't realize what this is right away (especially since the Pokemon right after it is a steel type ant- this thing being a fire type makes the ant really obvious prey) boggles my mind. D: I think you're looking too hard at the wrong things here.


I think so too. But there's so many wrong things to look at D:


----------



## surskitty

Joo Dee said:


> Isn't Ho-oh based off of a phoenix?


That too.





Alraune said:


> I'm pretty sure okapi only have stripes on their butts and legs, that Shimama is a corruption of the Japanese word for zebra (you of all people should know this too), and that it evolves into a Pokemon that _also_ has zebra in its name. Okapi aren't even really related to zebras, either, they're giraffes. And Ho-Oh is definitely supposed to be a phoenix, and while I guess you could argue that many phoenix representations draw elements from the peacock, the designers were probably looking at peacock-like phoenixes instead of making a phoenix-like peacock.


I don't think Gamefreak tends to care too much about whether evolutions make sense; see also echidna turning into ... stoat? turning into wolverine (hello cyndaquil line) and of course remoraid to octillery, though that one's probably a joke.

Gamefreak has also not shown much care for detail in what pokémon are labelled.  See also the tsutaaja line being called snakes.  (They're grass lizards.)

Shimama's neck looks more like an okapi's to me, I think.  Also, the word for zebra is basically 'striped horse' anyway so.  You have a point about only having stripes on its butt and legs, but I'm still leaning towards okapi.  An okapi that turns into a zebra just because.  (Stranger things have happened in Pokémon.)


Oh, Ho-oh's definitely a phoenix.  It's just also clearly based on a peacock.  You could split hairs as to whether they used a peacock as reference or just used peacock-like phoenixes, but either way it's a peacock/phoenix thing.


Crazy Linoone, please spell kuitaran right :(


----------



## Aisling

You have a point there... Blastoise definitely isn't a "shellfish".

I guess Shimama's neck is unusually straight and unhorselike, but I think if they had based it on an okapi it would be decidedly more okapi-like and less blatantly zebra (or trying to be a zebra, or whatever). Like... it could at least have ossicones or something. I'm pretty sure their intention was still a zebra, even if it resembles an okapi as much as any other chibi cartoon striped horse thing would.


----------



## Not Meowth

Crazy Linoone said:


> But we do have ice-cream Pokemon! And magnet pokemon! Some pokemon are pretty darn abstract.


...oh yeah, the ice cream. Okay, Pokémon are getting weird too :p
But still, _hungry goddamn burger_


----------



## #1 bro

Crazy Linoone said:


> @#1 bro: I agree with this very much, although a lot of pokemon seem forced. Combusken, for example, looks uncannily like Hawkmon. Most of the new legendaries (starting from gen 3, really) seem more like gods than super rare pokemon. At first, we had the legendary birds, which look like they could just be really rare animals. Even Lugia and Celebi seem like they're just rare; Lugias live at the bottom of the ocean, hence nobody can find them, and Celebi is just elusive due to its time-traveling abilities.
> 
> And then we had the Regis, which did not look like they occupy any sort of ecosystem at all. Groudon, Kyogre, and Rayquaza (as much as I love them) are on the fence here -- they _could_ be like Lugia and Ho-oh, really rare pokemon that's hard to find, but their superpowers make them seem... I dunno, a bit overboard. That's fine because it's the first time this happened, but then gen 4 came along and blew everything out of proportions. Now we have a god pokemon that created the whole universe, and that's just kind of unnecessary. We have the emotion/will/knowledge pixies, and those don't seem like normal animals at all, but more like gods. I don't know about gen 5's legendaries yet, since I'm avoiding plot spoilers and thus not sure of their functions, so I'll withhold comment on those.


Right, I agree. I think this is what turned a lot of people off of the fourth generation - how neither the absurdly powerful legendaries nor the unnecessary evolutions that make up for about half of the pokedex fit in the "spirit of pokemon" I described. U M and A are alright imho, they're very mew-like (although Mesprit is my least favorite pokemon due to its hideousness). But Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina are really bad. They look like soulless robotic fighting machine gods... I don't think it works very well. And Arceus... don't get me started. Arceus is probably the worst thing to happen to pokemon imho, although obviously it's not a huge deal because pokemon is still as sweet as ever. 

The third generation I think was alright though. Kyogre looks like it could completely just be a big thing lying on the sea floor, Groudon a big thing sleeping in a cave somewhere, and Rayquaza a big thing flying around in the sky. The regis are golems sculpted by an ancient civilization - they aren't particularly strong and this is a somewhat mundane and reasonable explanation so I'm fine with it. 

You'll be happy to know that gen V's legendaries are a lot better in this regard, however, as is the generation in general.


----------



## Kratos Aurion

The nose shape for the tsutarja line very definitely comes from vine snakes, not lizards, surskitty. There is some snake in there, trust me. Like most pokémon (as you yourself brought up with the ho-oh thing), it's more of an amalgam than it is any one thing.

And I've sort of been wondering something: what exactly is wrong with the idea of "pokémon gods"? Why couldn't the ostensible deities of this world be pokémon? Opinions about what they _look_ like are one thing (giratina looks awesome shut up, and anyway it's nowhere near as out of left field as conehead and dildomon--not that I dislike any of them), whether or not small children should really be able to stuff God or antimatter or whatever into a portable ball is another thing, but I'm wondering how many people who complain about them are actually separating those things out from the simple concept of deity-like pokémon. If arceus were uncatchable and looked a little more first-gen, would it still be such a huge problem that it created the universe? I'm genuinely curious about this.


----------



## surskitty

Kratos Aurion said:


> The nose shape for the tsutarja line very definitely comes from vine snakes, not lizards, surskitty. There is some snake in there, trust me. Like most pokémon (as you yourself brought up with the ho-oh thing), it's more of an amalgam than it is any one thing.


Oh, definitely, but the whole thing with losing legs is a lot more reminiscent of grass lizards than snakes.  Plus, then it's a grass-type grass lizard.


----------



## Griffin

Ho-oh is a Chinese phoenix. They're more heavily based off peacocks. In fact, it looks way more phoenix-like to me when you compare it with the normal Chinese phoenix.


----------



## Crazy Linoone

#1 bro said:


> Right, I agree. I think this is what turned a lot of people off of the fourth generation - how neither the absurdly powerful legendaries nor the unnecessary evolutions that make up for about half of the pokedex fit in the "spirit of pokemon" I described. U M and A are alright imho, they're very mew-like (although Mesprit is my least favorite pokemon due to its hideousness). But Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina are really bad. They look like soulless robotic fighting machine gods... I don't think it works very well. And Arceus... don't get me started. Arceus is probably the worst thing to happen to pokemon imho, although obviously it's not a huge deal because pokemon is still as sweet as ever.
> 
> The third generation I think was alright though. Kyogre looks like it could completely just be a big thing lying on the sea floor, Groudon a big thing sleeping in a cave somewhere, and Rayquaza a big thing flying around in the sky. The regis are golems sculpted by an ancient civilization - they aren't particularly strong and this is a somewhat mundane and reasonable explanation so I'm fine with it.
> 
> You'll be happy to know that gen V's legendaries are a lot better in this regard, however, as is the generation in general.


I'm actually fine with their designs; since they're gods and stuff, they can be a little bit special (although Palkia's design is kinda... um.) U, M, and A just look ugly. 

I think Giratina is great, actually; it fits the pokemon spirit pretty well in my opinion. Since it lives in another dimention, it has to be a little weird. I think Giratina is just one of those really, really rare pokemon that hangs around in another world having tea and doing whatever pokemon from other dimensions do. It looks pretty spiffy; its worm-like body and wings in Origin Forme allows it to move around in its natural habitat (Distortion World) easily, and it's _allowed_ to be weird because it's from another dimension. 

I also adore Heatran because it's cute. It's like Groudon's cousin or something. 



Kratos Aurion said:


> And I've sort of been wondering something: what exactly is wrong with the idea of "pokémon gods"? Why couldn't the ostensible deities of this world be pokémon? Opinions about what they _look_ like are one thing (giratina looks awesome shut up, and anyway it's nowhere near as out of left field as conehead and dildomon--not that I dislike any of them), whether or not small children should really be able to stuff God or antimatter or whatever into a portable ball is another thing, but I'm wondering how many people who complain about them are actually separating those things out from the simple concept of deity-like pokémon. If arceus were uncatchable and looked a little more first-gen, would it still be such a huge problem that it created the universe? I'm genuinely curious about this.


I'm more bothered by the fact that a ten-year-old can stuff a pokemon that created the whole universe into a little sphere and go around and battle other people with it without the world freaking out. I can understand a kid capturing Lugia without people going that crazy, but if you went around and captured _the god that created the universe_ and _the god that controls time and space_, I think the people would be just a little bit worried. 

Having a god pokemon is fine, but the fact that you can capture them without people freaking out is not. I would rather the gods be characters, not just another creature to complete your pokedex with. 

Actually, that would make a pretty interesting game: you end up capturing some god pokemon to stop some evil plot/whatever, and the whole region massively freaks out and goes after you to make you release said god pokemon. And then some more plot happens. And then something awesome.


----------



## Superbird

Crazy Linoone said:


> I also adore Heatran because it's cute.


I'm suddenly reminded of that really cute picture of a Heatran with a balloon hold item from B/W. It was hilarious.

Anyway, about Arceus—What about Mew? More NPCs would probably know what Mew was more than they would know Arceus. Maybe any notable person doesn't know that Arceus is a god and just figures it's really rare?


----------



## Eloi

> I'm more bothered by the fact that a ten-year-old can stuff a pokemon that created the whole universe into a little sphere and go around and battle other people with it without the world freaking out. I can understand a kid capturing Lugia without people going that crazy, but if you went around and captured the god that created the universe and the god that controls time and space, I think the people would be just a little bit worried.


1) This is pseudo-Japan, the Pokemon World (mostly). Gods are not held in the same reverence as in the Western world. Japan is not only the most secular nation out there, but the gods in its religion are not all-powerful. They usually accidentally create the things they do, not because they are particularly wise or strong, but because they were born as gods (similar to the way nobles are nobles because they were born into it, not because they themselves are special). Most people in Sinnoh that you are fighting with Arceus either: a) are secular and don't believe in the myths b) don't particularly revere Arceus anymore than the other Pokemon (more on that in point 2) c) don't connect your Arceus with the myths of it (I mean, if no one has ever seen one in modern times, how'd they know what Arceus looks like?)
2) With all of the impressive Pokemon, do you think any one is really surprised anymore? "Oh. Hey. A gigantic blue dragon with red wings flying over head with a ten-year old on it. Oh. Hey. An electric rodent. Oh. Hey. A computerized pink and blue thing that resembles a mix between N64 graphics and orgami." 
3)Ten-year-olds is more of a coming of age than in the Western world in Japan. So its not /that/ silly over there.

So I think its more of cultural differences causing the unlikely scenario than Game Freak not having foresight.


----------



## Butterfree

Can we really not just chalk the "people not freaking out when you capture gods" thing up to, you know, _the part where it's a video game_? You can do it in the video game because a large part of the point of the Pokémon video games is that all the monsters are essentially the same thing - if you fight something, you _will_ be able to obtain one for yourself and use _it_ to fight, one way or another, unlike Final Fantasy or something where the monsters are just enemies designed purely to fight you and you could never have them on your side. If there's an awesome god Pokémon, people want to be able to catch it and use it in their games, and it would just be annoying if all the NPCs started avoiding you or whatever (though it would be neat if they got different dialogue). It falls under the same category as why you never have to sit around waiting for challengers when you become the Champion; that's what would _actually_ happen, but implementing it in the video game would just be silly and annoying.

Meanwhile, in the anime we would never see Arceus or Dialga or Palkia or Giratina just caught by some ten-year-old and nobody having a problem with it. There are (adult, completely obsessed) madmen who would attempt something like that but everyone is appropriately horrified when it happens. Choosing to ignore the anime canon in favor of a game mechanic obviously there for the pleasure of the player and then using that to complain about the existence of these Pokémon? Yeeah, does nobody else see a problem with that?


----------



## Deadly Sniper Goat

As to Arceus/Palkia/Whatevs-



			
				TV Tropes said:
			
		

> Time for some pseudo-theological rambling, as this had bugging me for a while. Why would Arceus (and by extension ANY legendary) let itself get caught so (relatively) easily? I mean, he's the freaking creator of the Universe (at least in this/that plane of existence), he has power over everyone and everything (supposedly, either directly or not) and is supposed to be God... Then one fine day, the truth struck me in the head like a snowball coming from nowhere. It's actually simple: Arceus, being God, is immortal, while us puny mortals get to live... how much? 70 years? 90 at best? Guessing that such a short amount of time could barely mean anything to God, I've come to the conclusion it's a fair deal (and admittedly a pretty devious one): you get to "own" God for a while, then after your time has come, he either OWNS you (if some people's beliefs are to be right) or simply he sets himself free and continue with His business. After all, what's a human lifespan to Arceus - ever thought of that? Maybe he had been flipping you off all the time, or just wanted to give you the illusion of having caught a GOD FORREAL! and gloat about it while it lasts; or simply put, he took a liking to you and wanted to be pals with you, again while it lasted. As frightening such a thought could be, it's true - such things can happen in the great scheme of things (provided there's one), so I have to say, kudos to you, good sir!


I really don't have anything more to contribute to the way this discussion has turned other than that the Gen V mons are really fricken cool. Buffafro in particular is going on my team regardless of if he sucks or not.


----------



## surskitty

Deadly Sniper Goat said:


> Buffafro in particular is going on my team regardless of if he sucks or not.


Reckless Baffuron is more than capable of doing 98% damage to Scizor or Forretress or something like that with Afro Break.

That's something not very effective against something _bulky_.

Suck baffuron does not.


----------



## Kabigon

Also, one thing that has bothered me in Generation IV and now in Generation V is the skew between regular Pokemon and rare Pokemon. Hell, most of the legendaries in Diamond and Pearl seemed to come out of nowhere. I was able to tolerate Dialga starting time, Palkia forming space, and then the three pixies giving it substance. What I was not able to tolerate was the other five or six Pokemon that receieved legendary status for the sake of being Legendary. Generation Four and Five have killed the term legendary.

Hell, looking at the Pokedex now, I can hardly tell where Legendary begins and Legendary rare Pokemon begins. It's really unnerving.


----------



## Eloi

Kabigon said:


> Also, one thing that has bothered me in Generation IV and now in Generation V is the skew between regular Pokemon and rare Pokemon. Hell, most of the legendaries in Diamond and Pearl seemed to come out of nowhere. I was able to tolerate Dialga starting time, Palkia forming space, and then the three pixies giving it substance. What I was not able to tolerate was the other five or six Pokemon that receieved legendary status for the sake of being Legendary. Generation Four and Five have killed the term legendary.
> 
> Hell, looking at the Pokedex now, I can hardly tell where Legendary begins and Legendary rare Pokemon begins. It's really unnerving.


Um...to who, exactly? Does that even matter? And aside from that, the only reason I can tell the difference between legendary (Articuno) and non-legendary (Dragonite) in Kanto Pokedex is prior knowledge and familiarity, and I can assure you that built up familarity will build the legendary distinction.

tl;dr: there was never the term or status 'legendary', your own mind/fandom created the distinction all yourself/selves.


----------



## #1 bro

Kabigon said:


> Also, one thing that has bothered me in Generation IV and now in Generation V is the skew between regular Pokemon and rare Pokemon. Hell, most of the legendaries in Diamond and Pearl seemed to come out of nowhere. I was able to tolerate Dialga starting time, Palkia forming space, and then the three pixies giving it substance. What I was not able to tolerate was the other five or six Pokemon that receieved legendary status for the sake of being Legendary. Generation Four and Five have killed the term legendary.
> 
> Hell, looking at the Pokedex now, I can hardly tell where Legendary begins and Legendary rare Pokemon begins. It's really unnerving.


There are three legendary trios in B/W, and that's all. There are no more "random legendary pokemon" like Heatran, Cresselia, etc. You have nothing to complain about!


----------



## Kabigon

Why are there so many though!?


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate

Because they serve a purpose in the story or follow legendary traditions like the event legendaries being passed out at events and such?


----------



## Yarnchu

Kabigon said:


> Why are there so many though!?


This is going by what Pokemon were introduced that gen, so Kanto is 5/151, Johto is 6/100, and so on.

Kanto: 3.31% are Legendary Pokemon
Johto: 6% are Legendary Pokemon
Hoenn: 7.41% are Legendary Pokemon
Sinnoh: 13.08% are Legendary Pokemon
Unova: 8.33% are Legendary Pokemon

As you can see, Unova's percentage of Legendary Pokemon is only slightly higher than Hoenn's, and even then they all serve a purpose, unlike with many of Sinnoh's legends. Besides, there's 156 Pokemon in the dex. Plenty of normal Pokemon. The whole legendary thing isn't a huge issue in this game as it was in D/P, where there were fewer new Pokemon AND a huge amount of pointless legendary Pokemon. :/


----------



## M&F

Gen V kind of _needs_ a large subset of legendaries, too, with all the renovating and not being just like the previous generations. And it didn't even get more than Sinnoh did.


----------



## Coroxn

Pokémon designer. That would be my dream job. And Superbird, me too. I really am waiting for Pyrannah (The flaming piranha Pokémon). There is absolutely no way they are running out of ideas. Just from looking at my bookshelf, I can generate:
A skeleton Pokémon.
A Knife Pokémon. 
A ring Pokémon. 
A tree Pokémon (slightly done with Eggsecutor, I know)
A Minotaur Pokémon.
A scorpion Pokémon.
A Cerebus Pokeémon.

And that's just one shelf!


----------



## sv_01

Yarnchu said:


> Well, a lot! They've barely began to scratch the surface of plants and animals to use, and they've shown they aren't afraid to get obscure as far back as Gen 1(I bet very few of you know what Vileplume is based on!).


Vileplume is _just plain obvious_. Shuckle isn't.

I think Nindendo is trying to create a new generation of Pokémon fans that will feel nostalgic about Generation V. That might be the meaning of the "nova" in Unova. There are new bats, new jellyfish, new Rock and Fighting lines whose final forms require trading, and people say obvious stuff. The rules have changed as well: The Bug lines have different evolution methods, allowing cocoons to be strong, and there are other Pokémon that evolve on much higher level than their older counterparts. The rocks are harder to defeat. There's an NPC who trades _exclusives_ with you, and there is another duo of exclusives that are gender counterparts. And there are Bug and Fighting legendaries, and some type combos that seemed impossible before (Fire and Bug? That's as strange as Fire/Grass).
Maybe Unova is in a different world with a different set of legendaries. Maybe there will be a Generation VII, in which they will introduce the one(s) that rule(s) this world instead of Arceus (and Giratina).

Some Pokémon look like they were supposed to evolve from Pokémon we had known before. Alomomola is already obvious, but Bouffalant resembles Tauros by appearance (not by gender ratio, however) and I could imagine Sigilyph as an Unown evolution.


----------

